Yes the idea isn't, that they aren't allowed to recommend anything. It's that they can be held accountable (I.E. sued) if what they recommend, leads to people being radicalized by a hate group, or attempting suicide from cyber bullying. Or even just extra tharapy from doom scrolling ourselves to sleep. Right now Section 230 says they can't be held liable for anything on their sites. Which is obviously stupid.
Steve
joined 2 years ago
Those were my edits, they didn't use both
On one hand the Judge is right. On the other hand the lawyer is right. Then on two more hands, they're both wrong.
Yes, it's bad to legislate by moral panic. Yes, kids are addicted to social media. Those are both facts.
The reason age gating is a bad idea isn't because of moral panic, or "the children". It's because we're ALL addicted to social media. It isn't just the kids, it's adults as well. The problem is the intentionally addicting algorithms, meticulously engendered to keep us scrolling. I'm telling you in 50 years, we'll know how all the social media companies were hiding and lying, about the addictive harmful nature of their business; Just like we know about tobacco and oil companies today.
The best solution I can think of, is to revisit Section 230. You can't hold these companies responsible for what people post to their sites, but we can and must hold them accountable, for what they recommend! If you have a simple easily definable sorting or ranking system of what people choose to follow? You're fine, no accountability for something bad showing up. If you have some black box algorithm of infinite scrolling, based on a complex criteria that nobody can really break down and explain exactly why a specific post was shown to a specific individual? Now you're on the hook for what they see.
Judge Uses D&D’s Failure To Make Him Worship Satan, To ~~School~~ Teach Florida ~~On~~ About Social Media Moral Panics.
I think that's what they're trying to say
That's what the local feed is for.
I'm constantly surprised by people who don't seem to understand what ALL means.
You're speculating that Kagi is actually astroturfing on Lemmy. That's why I asked for an account you believe to be doing it on Kagi's behalf.
So yah, the social media manager or marketing agency is getting paid. People organically posting because they genuinely like the service, aren't. The former would be advertising. The later not.
Can you point to any accounts you think are doing Kagi astroturfing. IE being paid to advertise with. Because now it just sounds like you're speculating.
If they aren't paying anyone is it advertising? I'm not sure what you're actually talking about anymore. Maybe I never did
Should I ask them about being paid? I've been doing it for free all this time.
Sometimes people don't pay attention to the community a post is in.
I associate the word with money related activities
That's a good thing. It costs money to provide services to people. The Fediverse is no different.
Should we tell her there'll be another Pope, or is it funnier to let her keep believing?